Our book reports that a player who appears in the Final Four can see his draft position improve by about 12 slots. This effect is only seen in the year the player appears in the Final Four. If he returns to college, and fails to return to the Final Four, the effect vanishes. And there is no link between NBA production and Final Four appearances. So for those who believe decision-makers are perfectly rational, this would be a troubling result.

Although troubling to some traditional economists, such a result can be quite beneficial to the players lucky enough to appear in the Final Four. And now that the Final Four is set, let’s see who might be the real winners in the 2010 Final Four.

Let’s begin with a list of players who might be drafted. Such a list can be constructed from the following:

These three lists provide us a list of seventeen players who participated in the Elite Eight. Players on four of these teams – Duke, Michigan State, West Virginia, and Butler – are in position to earn the Final Four bonus. Players on the other four teams – Baylor, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Kansas State – fell just short.

The following table reports where the players who will be in the Final Four are currently ranked.

As one can see, the best player in the Final Four – according to DraftExpress – is Butler’s Gordon Hayward. Currently he is listed as the 26th best prospect. By appearing in the Final Four, though, his draft position could be enhanced. It’s important to emphasize that the results from the draft model we report are simply what we see in general. It may not hold true for any specific individual. That being said, if this result holds, Hayward will hear his name called earlier in the 2010 draft (and therefore earn more money).

The statistics also indicate that Hayward is an above average player. To see this point we need to consider Position Adjusted Win Score (PAWS). Specifically – as the following list indicates — we know the average Win Score at each position [from all players drafted from 1991 to 2008].

Center: 12.3

Power Forward: 12.5

Small Forward 9.9

Shooting Guard: 8.4

Point Guard: 7.3

Average across all players: 10.1

To determine PAWS40 [Position Adjusted Win Score per 40 minutes] we simply determine each player’s Win Score per 40 minutes (WS40). We then subtract the position average from each player’s WS40 and add back the overall average.

For Hayward, this calculation would be as follows:

Hayward PAWS40 = 11.9 – 9.9 + 10.1 = 12.1

Of the players listed above, only Hayward and DeMarcus Cousins are listed as above average. And Cousins is missing out on the Final Four.

It’s important to emphasize why Cousins is missing out on the Final Four. Against West Virginia, the Wildcats of Kentucky missed 28 three-point shots and 13 free throws. Had Kentucky maintained its average performance at the line they would have scored six to seven more points (Kentucky lost by seven). And had they maintained their average performance from beyond the arc, Kentucky would have scored 21 more points. Yes, West Virginia’s defense might have impacted Kentucky’s shooting from the field. But it does appear that Kentucky also suffered from bad luck (i.e. sometimes the shots don’t fall).

This bad luck will probably benefit Devin Ebanks, Da’Sean Butler, and Kevin Jones of West Virginia. Ebanks is considered a potential first round pick while Butler and Jones are regarded as potential second round choices. With a Final Four appearance, though, these players might be taken much higher.

Let me close by noting that I have heard that this particular result is being discussed by at least some people in the NBA. So one might expect that although this result held in the past, it may not appear in the future. At least, as an economist, I fully expect that once people see and understand a result it does eventually get incorporated into their thinking (our critique of traditional economics is simply that this process takes much longer than is generally argued).

Surprisingly – in conversations with people in the NBA – I have been told otherwise. In other words, the people I have spoken too fully expect the Final Four payday to continue. This is good news for the players who will appear in the Final Four this year. But this may not be good news for the teams – and fans of these teams – who expend a higher draft choice on a player just because that player got lucky during March Madness.

25 Responses to "The Final Four Winners"

I’m going to suggest this tendency to overvalue players who make the Final Four is born of the same womb as the ‘he only shoots a low percentage because he’s not afraid to take the big shots’ theory. By this point in the season you have thirty-some games for evaluation purposes, even for freshmen; the only plausible reason to weight the last two or three so heavily boils down to ‘he came up big when it mattered the most.’ Where this logic fails is in thinking the Final Four correlates extremely well to the NBA experience.

I’m not prepared to do a comprehensive list of Final Four studs who had little NBA success–I’ll name Pervis Ellison, Mateen Cleaves, and Sean May, but there are many more (and those three were rated with wide variety)–but all of them are likely to have benefited from at least one GM thinking that the player was solely or hugely responsible for carrying his team to the apex of the college game by force of talent. (Force of will might be a better indicator of pro success, but that’s off-topic.)

I’m being my usual long-winded self, but I think it’s one of the infinite variations on the ‘clutch, confident, big-on-the-big-stage’ theory that often fail to consider the whole body of work, as well as the everyday level of production. For that reason, I can’t be too surprised when NBA people expect it to continue; anything else would admit that intuition is not really a GM prerequisite.

I think it has a lot to do with the viewing availability of the NCAA tournament games. Many games these teams play through out the year are on local TV. Every game in the NCAA tournament is on national TV or online. So this may be the first time for many decision makers to evaluate the talent. For many bad decision makers this may be the only time they choose to spend a considerable amount of time scouting. So the more you play the bigger the impact you can make on impressionable drafters.

mrparker.
As a professor I like to think of thi s forum as a class. And the assignment for this month was to buy and read “Stumbling in Wins.” I think when you have completed this assignment you will find your answer :)

1) I hope that Kentucky’s loss has pushed Cousins far enough down the draft board for Detroit to draft. (!!!)

2) I can’t help but wonder if a similar effect happens in the NBA, although on a much smaller scale. I have Ben Gordon in mind specifically. In the Boston series, BG made (and took) a lot of shots in crunch time, and the media was singing his praises. I can’t help but wonder if the series against Boston inflated his value in Dumars’ mind.

Or maybe I’m just hoping Dumars isn’t as bad a GM as last summer would indicate.

Ty Lawson probably fell victim to the ‘he’s been in college effect and he’s too short’ effects…there are numerous ‘maxims’ in the NBA draft that are killing the NBA…not to mention that the focus on athleticism over skill is killing competitive basketball in general.

Admittedly I have not read the book yet as I’m working on my own ability to get better at statistics, but has some research been done concerning the ‘converse’ – have teams/players who ‘underperformed’ in the ncaa tournament hurt their draft stock thus allowing steals by teams who comprehend small sample size?

On thing I would note is that teams in the NCAA play in conferences of different strength. The varying levels of competition probably make it more difficult to measure relative talent/ability across the country using annual college stats.

Seeing high level players going at it head to head in the tournament gives coaches and managements a chance to see how all the players perform when faced with the same high level of competition over a series of games.

Given that the reason most college teams reach the Final 4 is because one or more of their star players had an excellent tournament (and vice versa), suspect impressions can be formed in that short period of time that then carry too much weight.

What may be needed is a better way to equalize the abilities of players that faced much different levels of competition. Then it wouldn’t be necessary to weight performance in the NCAA tournament so highly. Teams could also look at the annual stats and adjust them.

Is it the NCAA’s job to set up a system to better evaluate players for the NBA?

Not saying it is or isn’t, just wondering if the fact that Scouts/GM scout poorly based on the final four means the NCAA has to change something or folks who are idiots need to be fired?

I think the NCAA should stop it’s nonsense about being about ‘student athletes’ admit what it is and change the rules to mimic more the play in the NBA – move the 3 point line back, integrate the ‘charge circle’ and defensive 3 seconds, less allowed zones, call illegal defense…and bring the shot clock down to at least 30.

Ty Lawson was older than some of statistically inferior PGs drafted ahead of him. He was seen as being a bit of a liability on defense because of his size, and was generally injury prone in college. So some teams thought playing at the pro level would cause him even more injury issues. He’s been terrific, but I think I’d wait 2-3 more years to see how some of the younger PGs are playing at his age before I decided who the bargains were. Also, if you note, Lawson has missed a lot of playing time lately.

Confident predictions of how Jrue Holiday is going to turn out are silly, yes. He may turn out well; he may not.

Wish him well — why not? But one thing is sure. I don’t know how he’s going to turn out and neither does John.

The single best predictor of how an NCAA player will do in the NBA is how he did in the NCAA. Not a perfect indicator by any means. Just the single best one. “One and done” players don’t come with enough numbers, alas.

Cousins is head and shoulders above the rest ;-D. I think Daniel Orton is going to be a decent prospect. Only a frosh and 13 mpg. He reminds me of P.J. Brown; a big guy who can do a little of everything.

Actually, I think the Final Four effect on draft position is a marketing thing. No more than one of 4 draftees usually winds up being anything but a marginal NBA player anyway, so if you can pick a Final Four hero in the 2nd round to ride the pine for your team, it’ll at least get the fans’ attention. (Mateen Cleaves)

[…] article notes – was a member of the Florida Gators team that won back-to-back NCAA titles. Given the Final Four bias, it’s not surprising that Brewer managed to be chosen with the 7th pick in the 2007 draft. […]